Dear DC,

Op 31-dec-2009, om 17:10 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven:

> In your tranlation of the Dhammacakka passage, the word 'deva',
> occurs twice. May be the deva in " sadevake" and the deva in
> "sadevamanussaaya" have different meanings.

-------
N: Thank you for your observation. It is a good idea to compare
different translations. I am glad you remind me.
Ven. Bodhi just translates in both cases: devas.

I compare with Nanamoli's translation:< I did not claim in the world
with its gods, its Maras and high divinities, in this generation with
its monks and brahmans, with its princes and men to have discovered
the full awakening that is supreme.>

Ven. Narada: I did not acknowledge in this world inclusive of gods,
Māras and Brahmas and amongst the hosts of ascetics and priests, gods
and men, ...

Piya (<http://dharmafarer.googlepages.com> ): in this world with its
gods, its Maaras [evil ones], and its Brahmas [High Gods], this
generation with its recluses and brahmins, its rulers and people.

Piya has a helpful note to rulers:
deva, here in the sense of “devas by convention” (sammati,deva),
ie kings. The other 2 types of deva are“gods by
rebirth” (upapatti,deva) and “gods by
purification” (visuddhi,deva), i.e. the Buddhas, Pratyeka Buddhas
(N: sskr for Pacceka Buddhas, Silent Buddhas) and arhats.

The second time deva is used it can be translated as king or rulers.

I just have a problem when deva is used together with manussa,
sadevamanussaaya, I am thinking of the Buddha being called teacher of
devas and men.

Nina.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]